People v. Moore, Cr. 5510

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation295 P.2d 969,140 Cal.App.2d 870
Decision Date18 April 1956
Docket NumberCr. 5510
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Verna Louise MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 969

295 P.2d 969
140 Cal.App.2d 870
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Verna Louise MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 5510.
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
April 18, 1956.

[140 Cal.App.2d 871] Block, Toler, Bulloch & Biggerstaff, Compton, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Page 970

ASHBURN, Justice.

Defendant, having been convicted of bookmaking, appeals from the judgment and an order denying her motion for new trial. Defendant voluntarily and fully confessed the crime to the police after her arrest, and her counsel do not now suggest that she is innocent. The only claims made is support of the appeal is that material evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure and should not have been admitted at the trial.

On January 26, 1955, at about 2:00 p. m., seven sheriff's deputies and one officer of the Compton Police Department went to a residence at 1816 Ezmirlian Street, in Los Angeles County, where deputy Caraway, as he testified, looked through the dining room window and saw defendant seated at the dining table. Making such observations through a window does not constitute an unreasonable search and the officers were entitled to act upon the information thus obtained. People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855. Though the window had venetian blinds there were apertures through which the officer could abserve defendant. She was seated at the table with a telephone baside her, numerous pads and slips of paper in front of her; also a publication that Officer Caraway (who was stipulated to be an expert in bookmaking activities in Los Angeles County) identified to his own satisfaction to be a racing form known as the National Daily Reporter. Although he said on cross-examination that he could not positively identify it as such, he 'was pretty sure [140 Cal.App.2d 872] it was' a form. Of course, he did not have to be positive or possess evidence competent to prove the fact in court; a well-grounded belief was sufficient to lay the basis for a search without a warrant. People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 290 P.2d 535; Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294 P.2d 36; People v. Rios, 46 Cal.2d 297, 294 P.2d 39. In the present instance there was no warrant and the fact, if it be a fact, that the officers had had plenty of time to obtain one did not prevent their making the search if reasonable ground existed therefor. People v. Winston. 46 Cal.2d 151, 293 P.2d 40.

The officer identified themselves and demanded entrance; Caraway held his badge up to the window and said, 'Open the door, Sheriff's Department;' thereupon defendant 'gathered up that stuff and ran for the kitchen.' Fearing the destruction of evidence four officers entered the front door and four the rear one. They kicked in the front door through which Caraway and three others entered. Caraway ran for the kitchen and on arrival saw that defendant was turning on the water at the sink. The racing form and numerous white slips of paper, which proved to be records of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Sterling, Application of, Cr. 10320
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1965
    ...44 (police knock, sound of rushing); People v. Steinberg, 148 Cal.App.2d 855, 307 P.2d 634 (police identification); People v. Moore, 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 872, 295 P.2d 969 (demand for admittance, running, door then forced).) In the last case Mr. Justice Ashburn pointed out that the right to ......
  • People v. Willard, Cr. 5026
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1965
    ...762, 290 P.2d 855, 858; Bielicki v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.2d 602, 607, 21 Cal.Rptr. 552, 371 P.2d 288; People v. Moore (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 871, 295 P.2d 969; People v. Hen Chin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 583, 586, 303 P.2d 18; People v. Amado (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 345, 347, 334 P.......
  • People v. De Santiago, Cr. 12033
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 24, 1969
    ...(1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 270, 60 Cal.Rptr. 733; People v. Manning (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 416, 49 Cal.Rptr. 433; People v. Moore (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 295 P.2d 969), an unannounced entry may be justified. In these cases, however, compliance with the applicable knock-and-notice provision is ......
  • Ker v. State of California, 53
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1963
    ...or observed destruction of evidence of the very crime for which they had come to arrest the occupants, see, e.g., People v. Moore, 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 295 P.2d 969; People v. Steinberg, 148 Cal.App.2d 855, 307 P.2d 634; People v. Williams, 175 Cal.App.2d 774, 1 Cal.Rptr. 44; People v. Fishe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT